KANAKAPALAM ESTATE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are filed by the same assessee. The Revenue is the respondent in both these revisions. The matter relates to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. In effecting the assessments under the K.G.S.T. Act, for the above two assessment years, the turnover representing the sale of rubber trees was included. The assessee pot forward the plea that the robber tree is only an agricultural produce and so, not liable for assessment. This plea was negatived by the assessing authority, the appellate authority and by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in T. A. Nos. 971 and 972 of 1983 dated 7-1-1987 and held that robber trees are taxable under the K.G.S.T. Act. Aggrieved by the said decision, in T. A. Nos. 416 and 417 of 1984 dated 5-11-1987, the assessee has come up in revisions.

(2.) We heard counsel for the revision-petitioner/assessee. The main plea advanced before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and before us is that rubber tree is an agricultural produce and it is not "timber" and according to counsel for the revision-petitioner, timber can mean only such trees as are fit to be used for buildings and repairing houses. It was argued that the Appellate Tribunal erred in importing the definition of the word ''timber" in the Indian Forest Act and in its conclusion that rubber trees are taxable.

(3.) Under S.2 (xxvii) of the K.G.S.T. Act, the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest, shall be excluded from his turnover. But, Explanation (I) (ii) to S.2 (xxvii) states that agricultural produce shall not include tea, coffee, rubber, cardamom or timber. Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that rubber trees cannot be said to be "timber'' within the meaning of S.2 (xxvii) Explanation (I) clause (ii) so as to exclude it from the term "Agricultural produce".